Why traditionalists Baptize heretics, Split from The OCA

[尼古拉前执事]

I think Seraphim used Aquinas and Augustine to show what Catholicism used to teach, not to say he sees them as Church Fathers or saints themselves.

[尼古拉前执事]

I think Daniel's post helps explain a lot about the complications of this issue.

[Seraphim Reeves]

Mor Ephrem,

What scandal? The truth that they are indeed unwashed in the saving waters of baptism? Why should the Church, to whom they are coming of their own free will, worry about the scandal that truth would cause to them, if they are seeking her out? Should they not accept the Church on its own terms?

1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able (1st Corinthians 3:1-2)

To not speak forcefully on certain points, or to not dwell on them, so as to not unnecessarily burden someone who is still in the process of converting their ways, is what the generous Church does, whenever it is at all possible. I'm always learning more about the Orthodox faith, and I am sure this will never cease so long as my lungs have breath in them.

However, if this issue becomes emblematic of a larger problem (as it has in relation to ecumenism) then it is obviously going to have to be addressed more strongly. There is a marked difference between something being implicit to one's reception in the Orthodox Church, and certain voices raising opinions which actually make war against the Church. This is why the subject now, and at certain times in the Church's history, has become more discussed than at others.

But since when do forms attain such importance without substance? If someone is being received into the Church by chrismation, you are saying it "completes and heals" their previous "baptism". But if their previous "baptism" was meaningless, why wouldn't you baptise?

If it helps facilitate the process of receiving people into the Church, and the Church can in fact "do this" (heal what was previously incomplete, if exoterically "valid"), then the Church casts Her net as broadly as possible for the sake of souls. This is particularly the case, historically, when large numbers of converts have been involved (reception of entire parishes from the Papist-Unia, for example.)

I asserted my opinion based on the fact that you cannot receive any other sacrament before you have been baptised. What Church teaches otherwise? Would ROAC, for example, commune me? It regards me as unbaptised, after all.

If we have to split hairs and speak in terms of linear time, the "valid baptism" (as defined previously) is healed with the embrace of the Church, and the imposition of Chrism.

Btw., what do you make of the teaching that there is no salvation outside of the Church?

I still don't understand why this matters at all if the baptism in question is no more holy than being thrown into a public swimming pool thrice.

Because the form (if valid) is of the Church, which is Holy.

My knowledge and time to read the Fathers and see what they have to say on this subject is limited, and I would do a disservice in attempting it now. Besides, if heterodox sacraments have no grace, and such is defendable from the patristic witness, it doesn't harm my original point. I still don't get how exterior validity is enough of a justification for allowing heterodox people to be received into the Church in any way other than by baptism, if that exteriorly valid baptism is as grace filled as a bubble bath.

If what I have said so far is not satisying, there is little more that can really be said. The Church bestows what was lacking - completes, what was incomplete. All I could do at this point, is simply further confirm this opinion with more Patristic witnesses, citations from the Holy Canons, both on the subject of the Mysteries themselves, and on the broader (though very much relevent) topic of the Church's exclusivity as the Ark of Salvation (a concept which is fundamentally ireconcilable with the position you seem to favour, unless we are to believe the Church is in fact a composition of schisms, heresies, and Orthodoxy...a view which the Fathers most certain censure.)

Seraphim

[Seraphim Reeves]

LatinTrad,

Seraphim, as you yourself have pointed out with those quotations of Aquinas, valid Sacraments do not always bestow life.

I was citing the two, to simply show the problems with the newfound optimism expressed in official Roman Catholic documents (ex. Vatican II) on the status of non-Catholics...and to also show that the view of the Orthodox Church is not totally foreign to the views of many RC teachers after the schism. However, I also went to great lengths to show how these views differ, and why - an effort which I hope your non discussion of those points (energy/essence issue, ecclessiology, etc.) does not indicate was a wasted effort on my part.

Objectively speaking, it is a sacrilege to perform valid sacraments outside the Church.

I agree, though I'm pretty sure we have different understandings of what "valid" means in this context.

Nevertheless, if someone is not culpable, they can receive the life-giving effects of the Sacrament, as well as the Sacramental character which is given ex opere operato.

A view which I can only barely find in Augustine, and no one else in either the East or West, prior to the schism. However, even Augustine rejects the idea that the use of "valid sacraments" outside of the Church can help anyone - he in fact says it will harm such persons.

Once the indelible character has been given, the person cannot receive that Sacrament again. (The Sacraments that give an indelible character are Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders).

While I appreciate this explanation (for the benefit of those reading this thread), I am already aware of the RCC's teaching on this point.

If a baby is baprized outside the Church, provided that what was done was actually baptism, (Trinitarian formula, immersion/aspersion/infusion with H2O) that baby is not culpable for the schismatic nature of his baptism. He is given new life.

Yes, but even taking for granted this opinion (for the sake of argument), such would be a travesty (as far as Augustine is concerned) should this poor soul reach the age of reason and remain in their heresy. The same would seem to be indicated by the latter councils of the Roman Catholic church, which teaches at Trent, for example, that the "faith" spoken of in the Bible as being salvific, is confessional faith - that is to say, it professes to believe both in fact (in so far as this is possible) and in intent, all that the Papal church teaches. This was in oposition to certain pietistic sentiments that sprung up around the time of the Reformation, which taught that "Christian faith" was more a general sentiment or inclination towards God (and not an intellectual assent to not only the truth, but more important as far as the RCC was concerned, authority, which they believed came first from God, but was mediated by the Papacy and those local churches which act as extensions of his authority.)

If, on the other hand, I go to a schismatic Church and knowingly receive Holy Communion, I have received the Boby and Blood of Chrict--but I have done violence to Him, and it avails me nothing unto eternal life.

Not according to the 1983 Code of Canon Law - in certain cases (and it's not just death or danger of dying - the canon in question speaks of whenever this is of some "spiritual benefit", but without causing "religious indifference" either...how such a thing could not spawn indifference I do not know, but I didn't come up with this rule, Rome did) not only can communion, but even confession can be received by Roman Catholics in certain non-Catholic churches which Rome deems to have maintained a valid priesthood and sacraments.

See the difference between the validity and the life-giving nature of the Sacraments?

I think you need to re-read my posts on this topic. That you ask this betrays that either I have not made myself clear, or you have not paid close enough attention to what I have written.

St. Augustine said "Since we find non-Catholic things within the Catholic Church, should it surprise us to find Catholic things outside the Catholic Church?"

Yes, and typical of Augustine, he seeks to give explanation to exterior phenomenon/terminology which is beyond his competency (and in some cases, that of any creature) to give.

For example, where as the other Fathers whenever addressing the relationship between the Son's "begotteness" from the Father and the "procession of the Holy Spirit" from the Father, simply say the two are somehow differnent, and even censure (quite specifically) any attempt to pretend to "know" what either of these in fact are, or how they differ.

Augustine, otoh, was not satisified with this pan-Christian wisdom. Thus, he came up with the idea that the "procession" of the Holy Spirit, differs essentially from the "begotteness" of the Son, because one is a procession from the Father alone (begotteness of the Son), where as the procession of the Holy Spirit was (in his opinion) a procession of a hypostasis (God the Holy Spirit) from both the Father and the Son. He argued, presumptuously, that if this was not the case, then there was "no difference" between the Son and the Holy Spirit, and they just had to be the "same Person". This is incredibly presumptuous on his part, and is a view no Father ever endorsed, Eastern or Western. A probable source for Augustine's confusion on this matter, is that it is true that in the West, there was a tendency on the part of some Fathers to speak of the manifestation of the Holy Spirit from the Son (which the Eastern Fathers also espoused, with the perhaps less ambiguous formula "proceeding from the Father, through the Son) in terms which were very similar to the eternal/essential procession of the Holy Spirit from God the Father. Hence, you'd have this popular manner of speaking (outward/exterior dimension, which was Orthodox and not at odds with the mind of the Church), being given a new content.

Augustine does the same thing with the issue of baptism. He received with most of the western Church by that time, a near universal (in the west) practice of receiving converts from several heterodox bodies, via extreme economy. This of itself would be fine; the problem however, is the content Augustine gives to this practice...a content which is inseperably linked to his (false) understanding of grace, and his move away from redemption/faith being a true revelation of God to the human heart (and the assimilation of that "heart" to His Likeness, by acquiring His Presence in it), to an intellectual apprehension of revealed "truths", which are successively given via created media (primarily grace itself, which Augustine believed was creaturely.)

In case my words on this subject have been too poorly put for you to appreciate them, I'd suggest reading the following article, which touches on the topic of the "energies/essence" distinction...

The Distinction Between Essence and Energies and its Importance for Theology

Seraphim

[PFC Nektarios]

Oh man, you guys did it, im soooo confused with all this Canon's Talk.
Im going to Convert to Orthodoxy, and I have had it explained to me by
ROCOR Clergy that the proper way for a Heretic/Schismatic such as myself, be recieved into Orthodoxy is by the Mysteries of Initation.

How I see it in my mind is, How can a Protestant or Catholic have valid baptism when there is no grace/validity in their Sacraments?
I personally dont believe there to be any grace what so ever with in
Heretical/Schismatic groups Sacramentally, but as far is indiviudal, we all know thats not for up to decied or comment on.

"For although the beginning of the apostasy arose through schism, yet those who fell away from the Church no longer had the grace of the Holy Spirit. For the power of imparting grace disappeared because the lawful succession was cut off. For those who first fell away had received consecration from the fathers, and through the laying on of their hands had the spiritual gift. But when they fell away, becoming laymen, they had power neither to baptize, nor to lay on hands, and could not confer on others the grace of the Holy Spirit, from which they themselves had fallen away. Therefore, those who came from them to the Church, being considered to have received baptism from laymen, were of old commanded to be cleansed anew by true ecclesiastical baptism."
1st Canon of St. Basil.

How are we to interpret that? Sounds to me like if they fell outside of the Holy Orthodox Church they "Could not confer on other the grace of the Holy Spirit Which they themselves had fallen away".

How can some one baptize you into Christ when they themselves are not in Him? But fell away from him when they fell into Heresy or Schism?

Hope you can help, me to understand more.

In Christ
OrthodoxLearner

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

OrthodoxLearner,

You got it.

People often confuse two questions, 1) the qeustion of whether there is Grace in a heretic "baptism", which you answered well enough, and 2) the proper way to receive converts.

People have a tendancy to think that because someone is "only" Chrismated, their previous heretical "baptism" was a real one, which is not the case.

[Daniel]

How I see it in my mind is, How can a Protestant or Catholic have valid baptism when there is no grace/validity in their Sacraments?

They donot have baptism, 1)because they are heretics (filioque, among other things) 2)most donot immerse and if they do it is only once and not thrice.

How are we to interpret that? Sounds to me like if they fell outside of the Holy Orthodox Church they "Could not confer on other the grace of the Holy Spirit Which they themselves had fallen away".

You are correct there.

How can some one baptize you into Christ when they themselves are not in Him? But fell away from him when they fell into Heresy or Schism?

Again, they can't baptize, except in name only.